Inconvenient Kyoto Truths

[DixieFlatline]

I'm new to the Tailgate section, so this subject has probably been hashed and re-hashed to death. But I liked this George Will article today and thought I'd post it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/

"Feb. 12, 2007 issue - Enough already. It is time to call some bluffs. John Kerry says that one reason America has become an "international pariah" is President Bush's decision to "walk away from global warming." Kerry's accusation is opaque, but it implies the usual complaint that Bush is insufficiently enthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol's binding caps on emissions of greenhouse gases. Many senators and other experts in climate science say we must "do something" about global warming. Barack Obama says "the world" is watching to see "what action we take."

Fine. President Bush should give the world something amusing to watch. He should demand that the Senate vote on the protocol.

Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being—better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?...."

See link for rest of article.

[Sarge]

Bring China and India into the agreement, and I might start to look at it


Otherwise Will is right on

[SkinsHokieFan]

Will lands a HOWITZER with that article on Kyoto

I love that 95-0 vote against Kyoto back in 1999

[Cskin]

Ok...so let me get this straight.... The Dems are talking out both sides of their mouth about an issue at the core of their liberal agenda? huh.... :whoknows:... I'm shocked... :doh:

Yes... call me when India, China, and the rest of the world gets on board. Additionally, let me know when France isn't leading the way..... they'll surrender to a series of strong thunderstorms. :doh:

[alexey]

1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this.
George F. Will should probably clarify what he means when he writes "we do not know." We do know that there is a very small chance human activity is not causing the climate change. We also know that there is a very large chance that it does.

Throughout the article you'll notice him playing around with this "what we know" and "what we do not know" stuff, handling issues of epistemology very carelessly. You will find that kind of language in sources that attempt to resonate with common epistemological misconceptions.

On a side note:

The main difference between this report and the previous one from 2001 is that the IPCC now qualifies human activities as the ‘very likely’ (>90% chance) cause for the global warming.

[PleaseBlitz]

I thought this was a good point:


And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

[Hooper]

Call me crazy, but we should probably err with caution when it comes to global warming. A shame it's become such a political issue -- on both sides.

[alexey]

I thought this was a good point:



And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous.

We do know that it is dangerous because it will produce extreme situations - floods, droughts, etc. Such extremes are bad for mankind for a number of reasons, we want to avoid them if possible.



Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs.

Saying that temperature changes naturally does not address temprerature changes that ARE related to human activity.



Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

"no matter the cost" is a blatant attempt to force the reader into all-or-nothing thinking. Life did go very bad when temperatures got out of whack.

See Little Ice Age:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

[Kilmer17]

While those situations may be bad for mankind, what if they are actually BETTER for the earth?

Is it possible that the earth is defending itself?

[alexey]

While those situations may be bad for mankind, what if they are actually BETTER for the earth?

Is it possible that the earth is defending itself?
Karma is a b...! ;)

[Duncan]

Sure George, and there are people that deny the holocaust occered.
:rolleyes:

The fact that Kyoto is still mentioned in this debate shows ignorance and an unbelievable susceptibility to environmentalist propaganda. Kyoto was nothing more than wealth redistribution on a global scale.


We do know that there is a very small chance human activity is not causing the climate change. We also know that there is a very large chance that it does.

No we don't.

[PleaseBlitz]

Sure George, and there are people that deny the holocaust occered.
:rolleyes:




First of all....Wow.


2nd, Will isnt denying global warming. Read the 3rd and 4th paragraph again.

[Larry]

Call me crazy, but we should probably err with caution when it comes to global warming. A shame it's become such a political issue -- on both sides.

The expression I like is "Stop peeing in the pool".

My reasoning is: If we stop increasing the rate at which we pollute, and 100 years from now it turns out that global warming was a myth, we'll have still cut down on our reliance on something we should have abandoned, anyway.

(I've tried, unsuccessfully, to use the same reasoning on my brother, explaining that if he'd stop drinking, and it doesn't save his marriage, then at least he'll have stopped drinking.)

To me, the global warming people are probably right, but even if they're wrong, it's just one more reason to do something we ought to do, anyway.

-----

(Have I mentioned Space Colonization lately? Complete energy independence. Pays for itself. Zero pollution. 20 years.)

[Sarge]

The expression I like is "Stop peeing in the pool".

My reasoning is: If we stop increasing the rate at which we pollute, and 100 years from now it turns out that global warming was a myth, we'll have still cut down on our reliance on something we should have abandoned, anyway.

(I've tried, unsuccessfully, to use the same reasoning on my brother, explaining that if he'd stop drinking, and it doesn't save his marriage, then at least he'll have stopped drinking.)

To me, the global warming people are probably right, but even if they're wrong, it's just one more reason to do something we ought to do, anyway.

-----

(Have I mentioned Space Colonization lately? Complete energy independence.
Pays for itself. Zero pollution. 20 years.)

I would have no problem with this...............if the rest of the planet was brought into the plan. Especially China and India

But as it stands it's just a plan to suck funds out of the US to pay for ...............

Well, who the hell knows what it'll pay for. MAybe a downpayment on a Super Sun Ray Deflector or something

[PleaseBlitz]

We do know that it is dangerous because it will produce extreme situations - floods, droughts, etc. Such extremes are bad for mankind for a number of reasons, we want to avoid them if possible.


Saying that temperature changes naturally does not address temprerature changes that ARE related to human activity.

Floods and droughts didnt happen before SUVs? News to me.

And the temperature on Earth changes over time. It has in the past, it will in the future.



"no matter the cost" is a blatant attempt to force the reader into all-or-nothing thinking. Life did go very bad when temperatures got out of whack.

See Little Ice Age:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html (http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

So you critisize the author for exaggerating, then post links about the Ice Age in a thread about Global WARMING?

[DjTj]

While those situations may be bad for mankind, what if they are actually BETTER for the earth?

Is it possible that the earth is defending itself?That's crazy tree-hugger talk ...

The ONLY reason we should be doing anything that's better for the earth is if it is better for mankind. (What the heck does better for the earth mean, anyways - does the planet have feelings?)

We should curb pollution because it dirties our air and our water, which mankind needs to survive. We should try to save endangered species because they affect the ecosystems of animals that we need for food. We should try to keep the temperature within a range in which mankind can thrive.

I've always been a little confused as to why the environmental debate is so focused on global warming ... I think to some extent it's because industry advocates know that the arguments are weaker there, and the scientific community tends to get a little bit overly defensive. On the list of environmental consequences to worry about, it seems like global warming should be pretty far down the list...

[Larry]

I would have no problem with this...............if the rest of the planet was brought into the plan. Especially China and India

And just to extend my "my brother's drinking problem" analogy:

My brother, and his wife, both tell me, when I suggest they stop drinking, that they don't need to, because the other one won't stop, and the other one's problem is worse.

[alexey]

We do know that there is a very small chance human activity is not causing the climate change. We also know that there is a very large chance that it does.




No we don't.
Fair enough.

Again the definition of the word "know" comes into play. What do you mean when you write "know?"

I was referring to the IPCC's report, which now qualifies human activities as the ‘very likely’ (>90% chance) cause for the global warming. Of course if we use a strict definition of the word that kind of estimatioon can hardly be qualified as "knowledge."

We must remember that this particular subject matter is of a different nature than, say, mathematics and physics. This subject does not grant us the kind of certainties we came enjoy in other areas. That is why we have to base our decisions on whatever level of certainty is available. Brushing the whole discussion off with a "we do not know" does not give justice to what we can and do know.

[alexey]

Floods and droughts didnt happen before SUVs? News to me.
I did not say this.


And the temperature on Earth changes over time. It has in the past, it will in the future.

I did not dispute this.


So you critisize the author for exaggerating, then post links about the Ice Age in a thread about Global WARMING?
Actually, in that particular case i was not critisizing him for exaggerating anthing. I was critisizing him for downplaying dangers of extreme temperatures. Links about dangers of extreme temperatures seem appropriate in that context.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I did not say this.

I did not dispute this.

Actually, in that particular case i was not critisizing him for exaggerating anthing, but for downplaying dangers of extreme temperatures. Links about dangers of extreme temperatures seem appropriate in that context.


My thing is, what are extreme temperatures?

As the example said, is farming in Greenland worse for mankind? Sheet of ice in Chicago better?

And how do we mainting "this" temperature range that we have now?

I agree though with DjTj's post wholeheartedly. It seems like there are many other enviornmental problems we need to worry about before climate change. And Larry's point is also correct in that hey if we do work on cleaning the enviornement and people are proven wrong about climate change, who cares, things are better

The big question is, at what cost?

[alexey]

My thing is, what are extreme temperatures?

As the example said, is farming in Greenland worse for mankind? Sheet of ice in Chicago better?

And how do we mainting "this" temperature range that we have now?

Hey, farming in Greenland could be better for mankind... there could be some nice fertile soil under that ice... the problem would be that of logistics - who will farm that land, and what will happen to those who's land becomes unfarmable?

Also, based on what I read, we are talking about sudden and very strange stuff, such as droughts in one area and floods just miles away from it, making the overall area unsuitable for farming. In other words, there would be less overall land to farm if conditions become more extreme.

I don't think it is a matter of selecting a temperature and maintaning it, but rather simply trying to avoid upsetting the balance, trying to avoid drastic changes to the climate. Drastic changes are harder to adopt to. Farmers in Idaho will not start farming Greenland all of a sudden.



I agree though with DjTj's post wholeheartedly. It seems like there are many other enviornmental problems we need to worry about before climate change. And Larry's point is also correct in that hey if we do work on cleaning the enviornement and people are proven wrong about climate change, who cares, things are better

The big question is, at what cost?
True. I think all of these things are tied in together under the banner of responsible and sustainable utilization of resources...

The issue of cost, it seems, is what all of these debates come down to one way or another. I think everybody would agree what we should strive for. Everybody would probably also agree that we should determine a course of action based on cost-benefit-risk analysis.

Then these important factors come into play:
1) Underestimating risk in this situation will result in extremely bad consequences.
2) The end result (sustainable resource utilization) will have to be achieved in either case.
3) Drastic measures cause worse economic impact.

When put together these considerations do not leave much wiggle room, especially combined with trends observed since 2001, trends that cause the scientific community to sound increasingly worried (leaving the group of non-Exxon funded sceptics virtually nonexistant in the process). We really need to start doing stuff about this Global Warming thing.

[redwoody86]

Will lands a HOWITZER with that article on Kyoto

I love that 95-0 vote against Kyoto back in 1999

This vote was actually taken 5 months before Kyoto was finalized; they were not voting on whether we should ratify the protocol, but instead they were trying to give guidlines to the writers of the protocol.

"Gore wrote to The Times as follows:


The ‘Sense of the Senate’ resolution that Ed Koch refers to actually took place five months before the Kyoto Protocol was even written, and was aimed at providing guidance to the negotiators on general principles. During the political give-and-take over its wording, that resolution was eventually stated so broadly that even the strongest supporters of a tough treaty ended up supporting it. Indeed, the author of the resolution, Senator Robert Byrd, has publicly criticized the subsequent misrepresentation of its meaning by opponents of Kyoto."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/22/92331.shtml

[portisizzle]

I think the sun is to blame. But what do I know?

[Predicto]

My thing is, what are extreme temperatures?

As the example said, is farming in Greenland worse for mankind? Sheet of ice in Chicago better?




Things are definitely worse, at least in the short run. We have 6 billion people adapted to living in the current conditions.

I'm going to use an exaggerated and unrealistic example to illustrate this. Bear with me.

Lets say that weather patterns change and the monsoon that currently falls on the Indian subcontinent every year starts falling on North Africa instead.

In India and Pakistan several years of drought, lead to a billion plus people dying of starvation and desperately trying to move elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the new monsoon irrigates the Sahara desert. Maybe after a thousand years, the Sahara is transformed into a jungle.

Do you see what I am saying? The problem is not change per se, the problem is too rapid change, right now, that we as a species are not equipped to handle yet.


The earth doesn't care a bit, but the millions of human beings dead in India care a lot.


The Kyoto treaty is stupid because it doesn't include India and China. That part of the article I agree with. The rest of it is pretty much baloney.

[Duncan]

Fair enough.

Again the definition of the word "know" comes into play. What do you mean when you write "know?"

I was referring to the IPCC's report, which now qualifies human activities as the ‘very likely’ (>90% chance) cause for the global warming. Of course if we use a strict definition of the word that kind of estimatioon can hardly be qualified as "knowledge."

We must remember that this particular subject matter is of a different nature than, say, mathematics and physics. This subject does not grant us the kind of certainties we came enjoy in other areas. That is why we have to base our decisions on whatever level of certainty is available. Brushing the whole discussion off with a "we do not know" does not give justice to what we can and do know.

Fair enough back at you, but I still find it hard to believe that this panel can say with a straight face they know with 90% certainty human activity is causing global warming. There are so many other variables to consider and so much conjecture in the science. I’ll be happy to jump on board the bandwagon once politics is taken out of the science and someone can prove it.

Look, scientists also said with 100% certainty that the earth was flat, silicon breast implants caused immune deficiencies, margarine was healthier than butter, coffee caused heart problems and pancreatic cancer, Alar caused cancer in children, etc etc.

[alexey]

Fair enough back at you, but I still find it hard to believe that this panel can say with a straight face they know with 90% certainty human activity is causing global warming. There are so many other variables to consider and so much conjecture in the science.
Science considers all applicable variables that are known to exist. No that does not mean it considers all variables that exist, but neither does that mean there are "other variables" that are known but are not considered.


I’ll be happy to jump on board the bandwagon once politics is taken out of the science and someone can prove it.

You essentially stated the reason why following strategies work to keep you off the bandwagon:

1) Putting politics into science (claiming that scientists have agenda)
2) Equating "lack of 100% certainty" to "not knowing" (stating that scientists cannot prove it)

Sounds like you'll be happy to jump on board the bandwagon once those who want you off the bandwagon loose the ability or desire to keep you off.



Look, scientists also said with 100% certainty that the earth was flat,
The Scientific Method did not exist as a mode of inquiry at that point... I know flat earth reference is there for shock effect,but still...



silicon breast implants caused immune deficiencies, margarine was healthier than butter, coffee caused heart problems and pancreatic cancer, Alar caused cancer in children, etc etc.
First of all, you are recalling your personal impressions here. None of those things were said with 100% certainty. At most that kind of certainty was implied by news articles reporting on scientific findings.

Science is not perfect. You can fault it for not being always right, or for not providing answers with 100% certainty... but at the end of the day science is the best tool at our disposal for acquiring knowledge (unless we are dealing with non-scientific issues such as morality, for example - then you may want to turn to the Bible, Philosophy, or what have you) Would you argue against science being the best source of knowledge available to us when it comes to these matters? Are you saying that being wrong about breast implants trashes cridiblity of science when it comes to Global Warming?

[Buford]

Maybe we could use a One Percent Doctrine with this issue.

[chomerics]

My thing is, what are extreme temperatures?

As the example said, is farming in Greenland worse for mankind? Sheet of ice in Chicago better?

Ish, if the Greenland icecap melts, it will raise the sea level on the order of 23 feet. . .that doesn't sound like much until you consider that Florida averages 6ft above sea level. Also consider that 1/4th of the worlds population is in an area that would be under water if it melted.



I agree though with DjTj's post wholeheartedly. It seems like there are many other enviornmental problems we need to worry about before climate change. And Larry's point is also correct in that hey if we do work on cleaning the enviornement and people are proven wrong about climate change, who cares, things are better

The big question is, at what cost?

What are the "other" environmental problems that should be high on the list?

[chomerics]

The Kyoto treaty is stupid because it doesn't include India and China. That part of the article I agree with. The rest of it is pretty much baloney.

Yet again, you hit the nail on the head Predicto. . .

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ish, if the Greenland icecap melts, it will raise the sea level on the order of 23 feet. . .that doesn't sound like much until you consider that Florida averages 6ft above sea level. Also consider that 1/4th of the worlds population is in an area that would be under water if it melted.



What are the "other" environmental problems that should be high on the list?


See DjTj's post

And of course, the ice caps have been melting for thousands upon thousands of years. I wonder what was going through the minds of our ancestors at the end of the ice age

"We won't be able to cross the bearing strait!"

"The Penguins will dissapear!"

"Where will those in Florida go ice skating?"

[SkinsHokieFan]

Things are definitely worse, at least in the short run. We have 6 billion people adapted to living in the current conditions.



Do you see what I am saying? The problem is not change per se, the problem is too rapid change, right now, that we as a species are not equipped to handle yet.

.


Is .7 degrees celsius change in temperature over a century rapid change?

I am no weather expert, nor will I pretend to be, but lets put it this way, we are warm blooded for a reason, we adapt

People in Pakistan manage to survive in 120 degree heat every summer

People in Denmark manage to live half the year with no sunlight

You gotta define rapid change to me here. I see your example, but I have not seen evidence outside of the natural weather cycle that shows our weather becoming that much more volitale or extreme

I was told about a decade ago and a contrarian convention that the weather during the 20th century was the exception not the norm. That weather cycles are generally more volitale, and if you look at past data it is evident

So is global warming part of this weather cycle, heating of the earth, or humans? To me, its a combo of all 3, but there has been very little evidence to show rapid change like your example described

I have no problem with protecting the enviornement, none whatsoever, conservation is a very important issue to me. Personally I think doing simple things such as going to your park and cleaning it up each weekend and making sure you recycle and reuse has far more impact then worrying about a .7 degree change in the temperature over a century

[Sarge]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm


Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.


Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

[portisizzle]

Is .7 degrees celsius change in temperature over a century rapid change?

I am no weather expert, nor will I pretend to be, but lets put it this way, we are warm blooded for a reason, we adapt

People in Pakistan manage to survive in 120 degree heat every summer

People in Denmark manage to live half the year with no sunlight

You gotta define rapid change to me here. I see your example, but I have not seen evidence outside of the natural weather cycle that shows our weather becoming that much more volitale or extreme

I was told about a decade ago and a contrarian convention that the weather during the 20th century was the exception not the norm. That weather cycles are generally more volitale, and if you look at past data it is evident

So is global warming part of this weather cycle, heating of the earth, or humans? To me, its a combo of all 3, but there has been very little evidence to show rapid change like your example described

I have no problem with protecting the enviornement, none whatsoever, conservation is a very important issue to me. Personally I think doing simple things such as going to your park and cleaning it up each weekend and making sure you recycle and reuse has far more impact then worrying about a .7 degree change in the temperature over a century


Well said. Humans live in the desert. They also live in Alaska.

[alexey]

Sarge, please type in Dr. Tim Ball into Google and do some reading. He is not a published scientist but a hitman for Friends of Science and other similar initiatives.

Can we please agree not to clutter the cyberspace with articles by following individuals:

Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Linzen
Dr. Gray

[alexey]

Interesting page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us
and another
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[Predicto]

Yep. The same handful of names keep popping up, and they all refer to each other.

William Gray, Richard Linzen, Michael Crichton (who is a medical doctor and fiction writer). Same few names, over and over. What a surprise.

Ok, add Tim Ball. Who is Tim Ball? Let's see. Retired for ten years now. Hasn't published a peer-reviewed article in 14 years. Paid by energy firms (technically, he is paid by a public relations firm called "Friends of Science" that is paid by the oil companies - that is how he can say that it is a "lie" that he is paid by oil companies). Here's a nice long article about Mr. Ball and his funding.

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html

[Predicto]

Well said. Humans live in the desert. They also live in Alaska.

That is true. However, right now, a lot MORE of them live in the temperate places that currently grow a lot of food. If those places should become less suited to growing food, the disruption to our species will be enormous.

[Sarge]

Sarge, please type in Dr. Tim Ball into Google and do some reading. He is not a published scientist but a hitman for Friends of Science and other similar initiatives.

Can we please agree not to clutter the cyberspace with articles by following individuals:

Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Linzen
Dr. Gray

Oh. So it's OK to post opinions from people from one side of the arguement but not the other?

I present to you, the other side



http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528


The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.


The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen’s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society’s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual
"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added.

[Predicto]

Sarge, please type in Dr. Tim Ball into Google and do some reading. He is not a published scientist but a hitman for Friends of Science and other similar initiatives.

Can we please agree not to clutter the cyberspace with articles by following individuals:

Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Linzen
Dr. Gray


I disagree. Dr. Linzen is a frequently published scientist who actually works in the field. He may be wrong, he may be virtually alone, but he is actually in there studying this stuff. Ball and Gray are just old farts making speeches and enjoying the attention it gets them. Linzen is not.

Of course, the fact that there were 900 plus peer reviewed articles published in recent years that found global warming to be reality and pretty much only a couple disagree (including Linzen's) - that might tell us something too.

[alexey]

Oh. So it's OK to post opinions from people from one side of the arguement but not the other?

There are suspect activities taking place on either side of the argument. Stating that does not lend credibility to somebody who quit a position at University of Winnipeg to become a scientific gun-for-hire for Friends of Science in 1996, and who's only published work in 34 years since completing his thesis consists of a text called "The Fundamentals of Physical Geography" and a populist non-fiction "Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay"

[alexey]

I disagree. Dr. Linzen is a frequently published scientist who actually works in the field. He may be wrong, he may be virtually alone, but he is actually in there studying this stuff. Ball and Gray are just old farts making speeches and enjoying the attention it gets them. Linzen is not.

Of course, the fact that there were 900 plus peer reviewed articles published in recent years that found global warming to be reality and pretty much only a couple disagree (including Linzen's) - that might tell us something too.
Yes my bad, I was too quick on the trigger putting Dr. Linzen in there. He is one of a handful of real scientists who disagree with the Global Warming concensus.

[Johnny Punani]

I disagree. Dr. Linzen is a frequently published scientist who actually works in the field. He may be wrong, he may be virtually alone, but he is actually in there studying this stuff. Ball and Gray are just old farts making speeches and enjoying the attention it gets them. Linzen is not.

Of course, the fact that there were 900 plus peer reviewed articles published in recent years that found global warming to be reality and pretty much only a couple disagree (including Linzen's) - that might tell us something too.

Quit being dishonest. He isn't "virtually alone" in his thinking. There are many meteorologists and climatologist who question the validity of AGW and it's effects.

I have a question for all the pro AGW people out there. Since you believe global warming is caused from manmade CO2 emissions, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere should we be at?

[portisizzle]

Quit being dishonest. He isn't "virtually alone" in his thinking. There are many meteorologists and climatologist who question the validity of AGW and it's effects.

I have a question for all the pro AGW people out there. Since you believe global warming is caused from manmade CO2 emissions, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere should we be at?


{crickets chirping}

[chomerics]

See DjTj's post

And of course, the ice caps have been melting for thousands upon thousands of years. I wonder what was going through the minds of our ancestors at the end of the ice age

Please, they are melting faster and the melt period is accelerating. To frame the question like that is almost as bad as the ID crowd saying "well prove this". The greenland caps ARE melting faster then we previously thought, and current estimations put it at something like 200 years before they are gone.



"We won't be able to cross the bearing strait!"

"The Penguins will dissapear!"

"Where will those in Florida go ice skating?"

Why don't you try to actually discuss the issue. Plugging your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalalalala I can't hear you is akin to saying you have no argument.

[chomerics]

Quit being dishonest. He isn't "virtually alone" in his thinking. There are many meteorologists and climatologist who question the validity of AGW and it's effects.

Johnny, yes he is "virtually alone" in his thinking, and it should come as no surprise who the people are funded by. That was the point of the article.



I have a question for all the pro AGW people out there. Since you believe global warming is caused from manmade CO2 emissions, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere should we be at?

Better yet, answer this question, is there evidence that the earths temperature is linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

http://www.architecture2030.org/images/current_situation/CS02-CO2-Temperature.gif

[portisizzle]

Better yet, answer this question, is there evidence that the earths temperature is linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes or no.



Answer his question first......

[chomerics]

Answer his question first......And who are you the question police???

If I was to give an answer, I would say around 280ppm, which I believe was the level around the 1850's before the industrial revolution.

What is the correlation between the CO2 levels and temperature? Why does the earth's global temperature mimic the CO2 levels throughout the history of the past million or so years? Those are questions to ask as well. . .

[Predicto]

Quit being dishonest. He isn't "virtually alone" in his thinking. There are many meteorologists and climatologist who question the validity of AGW and it's effects.



I am not being dishonest.


In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Percentage wise, the number of experts who doubt manmade global climate change is very small. There is legitimate debate about the ultimate amount effect of that change, of course. No one can predict the future with certainty, we can only make best estimates based on the information before us.



I have a question for all the pro AGW people out there. Since you believe global warming is caused from manmade CO2 emissions, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere should we be at?


I have no idea of specific numbers, as I am not an expert in this field. I probably could find some answers for you on Google. Why do you ask?

[portisizzle]

If I was to give an answer, I would say around 280ppm, which I believe was the level around the 1850's before the industrial revolution.

.

How do we do this. And don't pull the answer out of your behind. :)

Show me......and keep the politics out of this for a minute.

[Johnny Punani]

Johnny, yes he is "virtually alone" in his thinking, and it should come as no surprise who the people are funded by. That was the point of the article.



Better yet, answer this question, is there evidence that the earths temperature is linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

http://www.architecture2030.org/images/current_situation/CS02-CO2-Temperature.gif

And Alexy posted the exact same graph with the temp increase PRECEDINGthe CO2 increase. Anyway, let's look at that graph and assume it is correct. The correlation is very close in reguards to time between CO2 increase and temp increase. We should have seen a large increase in temps but the temps have been stable for the last 10,000 yrs accoring to the graph.

You have MS powerpoint?

Watch this...

http://media.myfoxphilly.com/images/gw.ppt

Some very strong correlations there...



So we question the reasoning of those based on their funding correct? If that is the case they why aren't you questioning the reasoning for those on the other side of the arguement who receive funding by groups who are pushing this for political/economic reasons? We all know Kyoto had some very disturbing socialist aspects included in it including wealth distribution via trading of CO2 sinks from wealthy-industrialized nations to poorer-unindustrialized ones. Also, Universities and Ecological groups have received funding to produce studies and reports on GW. I'm sure they enjoy the funding they are receiving.

So, the question still stands. And it is the correct question since you already believe there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone who believes in AGW, what is the correct amount of CO2 we should have in the atmosphere?

[Johnny Punani]

Here is the graph Alexy posted

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbon_dioxide.jpg



Now, a "scientific" paper that validates this graph.

http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~veizer/default.html


Letters to Nature
Nature 408, 698-701(7 December 2000) | doi:10.1038/35047044; Received 7 July 2000; Accepted 2 October 2000

Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon
Ján Veizer1, Yves Godderis2 and Louis M. François2

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are believed to drive climate changes from glacial to interglacial modes1, although geological1,2,3 and astronomical4,5,6 mechanisms have been invoked as ultimate causes. Additionally, it is unclear7,8 whether the changes between cold and warm modes should be regarded as a global phenomenon, affecting tropical and high-latitude temperatures alike9,10,11,12,13, or if they are better described as an expansion and contraction of the latitudinal climate zones, keeping equatorial temperatures approximately constant14,15,16. Here we present a reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures throughout the Phanerozoic eon (the past 550 Myr) from our database17 of oxygen isotopes in calcite and aragonite shells. The data indicate large oscillations of tropical sea surface temperatures in phase with the cold–warm cycles, thus favouring the idea of climate variability as a global phenomenon. But our data conflict with a temperature reconstruction using an energy balance model that is forced by reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations18. The results can be reconciled if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable.

Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr Universität, 44780 Bochum, Germany, and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
Laboratoire de Physique Atmosphérique et Planétaire, Université de Liège, 4000 Liège, Belgium
Correspondence to: Ján Veizer1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.V. (e-mail: Email: veizer@science.uottawa.ca).

Received 7 July 2000 |Accepted 2 October 2000

[KAOSkins]

There is no such thing as a proper amount of co2 in the atmosphere. It's dynamic as is the climate of the earth. There's an amount that makes life most pleasant for us, but natural cycles care little for that. It will change and there's not damn thing we can do about. We can thereotically slow it down and speed it up. But eventually the folks by the ocean are gonna be stuck in more than a creek without that paddle. I'll rent a room, but it'll cost ya. :D


It's sensible to discuss the adapadability of humans as a whole because when we speak of monumental changes in something so intertwined with our exitence as the climate (which by the way is dependant on number of othe factors outside of green house gases) we need to look at it from a larger vantage point. Humans will survive near anything but it's not going to be without whole sale destruction. Cataclysmic events will eventually happen and I'm not a doomsday propenent. It's just a the nature of the beast.

Evantually one will happen, per Hawkins, that will require us to adandon this planet.

[Johnny Punani]

BTW, the IPCC report is out...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Here is an article about it and some of the BS being said about it...

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/02/the_ipcc_report_is_out_let_the.php

[SkinsHokieFan]

Why don't you try to actually discuss the issue. Plugging your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalalalala I can't hear you is akin to saying you have no argument.


Its about as akin as trying to discredit me by saying where I got my sources :laugh:

But the argument is simple. Is the climate changing beyond the norms of cyclical weather changes which have occured through thousands of years?

And if so, why are you white people still so pale? ;) :laugh:

[KAOSkins]

Its about as akin as trying to discredit me by saying where I got my sources :laugh:

But the argument is simple. Is the climate changing beyond the norms of cyclical weather changes which have occured through thousands of years?

And if so, why are you white people still so pale? ;) :laugh:

Cause relatively short interglacials end with relatively long glacial periods. Hell, the evolution of white people in the northern climes reiterates that. The evolution of caucasians in southern climes to dark skin does the same.

[Johnny Punani]

The evolution of caucasians in southern climes to dark skin does the same.

Like in Pakistan and India?

[Predicto]

BTW, the IPCC report is out...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Here is an article about it and some of the BS being said about it...

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/02/the_ipcc_report_is_out_let_the.php

That's not an article - that is a blog.

And the very first objection that the guy made in his blog was refuted and explained by the very first poster who responded on his blog (the blogger failed to draw the distinction between Fareinheit and Celcius numbers).

I am sure that a massive effort will be made to undercut the IPCC report, but even the oil companies can't move that fast. Wait a couple of days for the inevitable expert responses for the Exxon thinktanks to start pouring in, peppered with the usual quotes from Michael Crichton and Dr. William Gray. :)

[Predicto]

Its about as akin as trying to discredit me by saying where I got my sources :laugh:

But the argument is simple. Is the climate changing beyond the norms of cyclical weather changes which have occured through thousands of years?

And if so, why are you white people still so pale? ;) :laugh:


Weather changes that happen over thousands of years are one thing. When the same weather changes happen over mere decades, we have big problems.

[Johnny Punani]

That's not an article - that is a blog.

And the very first objection that the guy made in his blog was refuted and explained by the very first poster who responded on his blog (the blogger failed to draw the distinction between Fareinheit and Celcius numbers).

I am sure that a massive effort will be made to undercut the IPCC report, but even the oil companies can't move that fast. Wait a couple of days for the inevitable expert responses for the Exxon thinktanks to start pouring in, peppered with the usual quotes from Michael Crichton and Dr. William Gray. :)

What are you talking about?

The first link I provided is the IPCC report.

It is pretty evident you didn't even read the article in the blog because you missed the entire premise of it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Weather changes that happen over thousands of years are one thing. When the same weather changes happen over mere decades, we have big problems.


I agree

Now, have we had massive weather changes over decades which are outside of cyclical weather norms?

As I stated before, the 20th century was apparently an abberation as the weather on the planet was fairly calm with respect to how weather had once been.

So I ask you, is it the cyclical nature of earth, or is it the fact we are driving cars doing this? Is it a combination? Is there anything we can do about it? What is "normal" weather?

[GibbsFactor]

I'm no climatologist, but that green line on that chart is scary. I know we can't hurt Tera, but we sure can piss her off enough to get rid of our arses.

[Predicto]

What are you talking about?

The first link I provided is the IPCC report.

It is pretty evident you didn't even read the article in the blog because you missed the entire premise of it.

What you linked was the report and a blog. And that is what I said. I read the blog and that was what I discussed in my post.

[KAOSkins]

Like in Pakistan and India?

That's who I was thinking of. I believe the Australian aborogines are considered cuacasian as well.

[alexey]

The results can be reconciled if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable.

Johnny, there are many things driving the climate change. Carbon dioxide is one of them. It did not have to be the principal driver back then in order to be the principal driver now that there is 30% more of it up there due to human activity. The chart illustrates just how rediculously high and rediculously quickly it went up.

[KAOSkins]

Weather changes that happen over thousands of years are one thing. When the same weather changes happen over mere decades, we have big problems.

There's been documented evidence of that as well. I explained and sourced it another thread a while back, and will do so again if you make me. :) When warming leads to the disruption of the gulf stream (and the conveyor system as a whole) climate drops almost immediately in the norther hemisphere.

[alexey]

Sceptics,

In light of new scientific evidence IPCC went from "likely" (between 66 percent to 90 percent) in 2001 to "very likely" (90 to 99 percent) in 2006 in blaming human activities for Global Warming.

Question:

Were there any changes to your stance on Global Warming between 2001 and now in light of new scientific evidence?

[KAOSkins]

Sceptics,

In light of new scientific evidence IPCC went from "likely" (between 66 percent to 90 percent) in 2001 to "very likely" (90 to 99 percent) in 2006 in blaming human activities for Global Warming.

Question:

Were there any changes to your stance on Global Warming between 2001 and now in light of new scientific evidence?

I suppose I was'nt really a skeptic. I've always believed we contribute to some extent. The extent is what's up for grabs as well as when it would happen anyway. We're due according the models I am not suprised to see it happening.

Now time to catch some Rome

[Lowghost]

Sorry, right now I am only on page 3, but this statement is false:

"Ish, if the Greenland icecap melts, it will raise the sea level on the order of 23 feet. . .that doesn't sound like much until you consider that Florida averages 6ft above sea level. Also consider that 1/4th of the worlds population is in an area that would be under water if it melted."

Greenland's icecap, in no way shape or form could cause the sea level to increase in order of 23 feet. Please tell my where you got this misinformation from.

You do know how much of the Earth is covered with water right ? I don't see how an area as small as Greenland could possibly make this much of an impact. I could see, at most a 3 inch, as you say, sea level increase.

[Duncan]

Johnny, yes he is "virtually alone" in his thinking, and it should come as no surprise who the people are funded by. That was the point of the article.



Better yet, answer this question, is there evidence that the earths temperature is linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

http://www.architecture2030.org/images/current_situation/CS02-CO2-Temperature.gif

Prove that CO2 is not the lagging indicator in that graph.

Also, since you have bought into the doom and gloom scenario of global warming, sea levels will rise and there will be widespread death and destruction, I'm sure you have radically altered your behavior.

You and all the alarmist have sold your cars no doubt. You have installed solar panels in your condo and you work for companies that do the same, right? You are fully behind nuclear power because it's the cleanest form of energy. You are willing to band together and donate a large percentage of your salary to foundations that are trying to develop alternative sources of clean energy. After all, if you don't act now in 20 years it will be too late. Think of the children Mike. You are ready to make serius sacrifices I'm sure.

If you really believe it what are you waiting for? Are you really waiting for legislation to be passed by congress before you act? 50% of the country vote democrat and I must assume they believe in "global warming". Think of the impact it would have if all democrats stopped driving cars and installed solar panels. All those little Subaru Foresters putzing around with the "no war for oil" stickers. They still burn fossil feuls and emit CO2 right?

You might actually prevent the destruction of the planet.

Maybe it's time for you alarmists to start backing up your rhetoric with action and not waiting until your politics are imposed on everyone else.

[KAOSkins]

50% of the country vote democrat and I must assume they believe in "global warming". Think of the impact it would have if all democrats stopped driving cars and installed solar panels. All those little Subaru Foresters putzing around with the "no war for oil" stickers. They still burn fossil feuls and emit CO2 right?

Rhetorically, there is almost no one arguing that global warming doesn't exist. Present company accepted I guess. It's the cause that's the argument, as well as whether we can or should do anything about it.

Are you proposing that, climate change aside, it's a good thing to continue to be reliant on this fuel that we get from the **** holes of the world? I'd like to cut the bastards off from our market and watch them sink into the hell they'd like to create, without having to depend on them for ****.

[chomerics]

And Alexy posted the exact same graph with the temp increase PRECEDINGthe CO2 increase. Anyway, let's look at that graph and assume it is correct. The correlation is very close in reguards to time between CO2 increase and temp increase. We should have seen a large increase in temps but the temps have been stable for the last 10,000 yrs accoring to the graph.

Johnny, come on now, you know the answer to that question, just look at the graph. The time scale is so small you can't differentiate short term shifts (hence the increase of CO2 is a vertical line).



You have MS powerpoint?

Watch this...

http://media.myfoxphilly.com/images/gw.ppt

Some very strong correlations there...


And nothing inside the entire presentation says global warming is not happening. . .besides, half the stuff they mention is contradicted by the ipcc report to boot!



So we question the reasoning of those based on their funding correct? If that is the case they why aren't you questioning the reasoning for those on the other side of the arguement who receive funding by groups who are pushing this for political/economic reasons? We all know Kyoto had some very disturbing socialist aspects included in it including wealth distribution via trading of CO2 sinks from wealthy-industrialized nations to poorer-unindustrialized ones. Also, Universities and Ecological groups have received funding to produce studies and reports on GW. I'm sure they enjoy the funding they are receiving.

Johnny, the NASA scientists at Goddard who had their jobs put in jeopardy are not "the other side". They are real scientists, and they understand the issue. They had their jobs almost removed because they produced science. Yea, they have a real personal interest in presenting the facts huh :rolleyes:

If you would only open up your eyes, you would see that the island you are standing on is getting smaller and smaller by the day. Have you read the latest report? Did you even bother to download it and read it? Because you sound like you already have your mind made up, and nothing will change it. . .well, that is not science. . .



So, the question still stands. And it is the correct question since you already believe there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone who believes in AGW, what is the correct amount of CO2 we should have in the atmosphere?

Did you read the Ipcc report?

[chomerics]

Prove that CO2 is not the lagging indicator in that graph.

Also, since you have bought into the doom and gloom scenario of global warming, sea levels will rise and there will be widespread death and destruction, I'm sure you have radically altered your behavior.

You and all the alarmist have sold your cars no doubt. You have installed solar panels in your condo and you work for companies that do the same, right? You are fully behind nuclear power because it's the cleanest form of energy. You are willing to band together and donate a large percentage of your salary to foundations that are trying to develop alternative sources of clean energy. After all, if you don't act now in 20 years it will be too late. Think of the children Mike. You are ready to make serius sacrifices I'm sure.

If you really believe it what are you waiting for? Are you really waiting for legislation to be passed by congress before you act? 50% of the country vote democrat and I must assume they believe in "global warming". Think of the impact it would have if all democrats stopped driving cars and installed solar panels. All those little Subaru Foresters putzing around with the "no war for oil" stickers. They still burn fossil feuls and emit CO2 right?

You might actually prevent the destruction of the planet.

Maybe it's time for you alarmists to start backing up your rhetoric with action and not waiting until your politics are imposed on everyone else.

And this contributed what to the debate? Why is it that only republicans disagree with it? Seriously?

Think about that for a minute

[chomerics]

Its about as akin as trying to discredit me by saying where I got my sources :laugh:

But the argument is simple. Is the climate changing beyond the norms of cyclical weather changes which have occured through thousands of years?

According to the latest report, it is a resounding YES!!!



And if so, why are you white people still so pale? ;) :laugh:

Read the report . . . http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

[chomerics]

Sorry, right now I am only on page 3, but this statement is false:

"Ish, if the Greenland icecap melts, it will raise the sea level on the order of 23 feet. . .that doesn't sound like much until you consider that Florida averages 6ft above sea level. Also consider that 1/4th of the worlds population is in an area that would be under water if it melted."

Greenland's icecap, in no way shape or form could cause the sea level to increase in order of 23 feet. Please tell my where you got this misinformation from.

You do know how much of the Earth is covered with water right ? I don't see how an area as small as Greenland could possibly make this much of an impact. I could see, at most a 3 inch, as you say, sea level increase.

Sorry, but you are wrong. . .

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/


If Earth's climate continues to warm, then the volume of present-day ice sheets will decrease. Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1). The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level. Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level.

Those numbers were correct, a 6.5 meter rise is 23 feet, and that is just Greenland.

[Lowghost]

I stand corrected. That magic word "If" appears.

I read the whole thing, not just the part you picked out. It was interesting.

The Earth does go through climate changes, the pole is shifting also. You may see areas that are melting right now, but there are also places that are refreezing that do compensate.

If Greenland alone was melting as fast as certain people want to make it seem, a lot of the major areas of the East Coast would already be under water. ;)

[chomerics]

I stand corrected. That magic word "If" appears.

Magic word???? If the ice melts we would be under water??? What part of that is not correct? You stated my post was false, you also stated that the ice could not raise the ocean by 23 feet. You were wrong, there is no "magic word" which alleviates you from being wrong, you were not correct, and your assumptions were completely false.



I read the whole thing, not just the part you picked out. It was interesting.

The Earth does go through climate changes, the pole is shifting also. You may see areas that are melting right now, but there are also places that are refreezing that do compensate.

Not correct, yet again. There are areas where the glacial mass is increasing, that much is correct, but it is NOT compensating for the mass loss of ice. For example, in Greenland, the center of the ice mass is actually increasing in size by something like 50 miles³, but it is losing at the rate of over 250 miles³. That is a net loss of over 200 miles³ and that number is INCREASING.

That is what everyone is concerned about, not just the fact that is it melting, but the melt rate is accelerating!!! There is also speculation that there will be a tipping point in glacier melting where the entire ice sheet breaks up in a VERY SHORT time frame. There are mathematical models which examine the force these glaciers have due to gravity, and what happens when they lose say 1/4 of their mass. Their models state that you get a catastrophic breakup. This is what people are worried about!



If Greenland alone was melting as fast as certain people want to make it seem, a lot of the major areas of the East Coast would already be under water. ;)

What "certain people" are these? Look at the data and examine it yourself, then see what everyone is talking about. This IS happening, and the people who are saying that it isn't are all on the same side of the political fence. Then to top it off, they are saying to remove the politics out of it :doh: If they could only remove their partisan blinders for a single moment and examine the issue they could see why people are saying this needs to be addressed.

[alexey]

50% of the country vote democrat and I must assume they believe in "global warming".



I’ll be happy to jump on board the bandwagon once politics is taken out of the science and someone can prove it.
Simply amazing.

Still waiting for replies to:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3488459&postcount=26
http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3489253&postcount=66

[alexey]

Thanks again for demonstrating the "fatal flaw" of Democracy, as if introducing Democracy to the Middle East did not demonstrate that flaw in its full glory. There are not many alternatives, unfortunately... dictatorship works if the dictator is a tallented leader with interest of people at heart - but even benevolent dictators die. Maybe a Tyranny of the Educated is the answer ;)

Yes there are self-correcting mechanisms in the system, but the system is still very vulnerable to disinformation campaigns. This is especially true now that flooding people with information from different directions is easy. It is a well-studied psych phenomenon that we grant a higher level of credibility to information that we percieve to come from different sources.

[Lowghost]

chomerics,

Please don't bring politics into this, because I haven't any affiliation to any party. :)

I agree mankind is speeding up the climate change, how rapid that is, I really don't have a clue.

I agree that if 25% of a major glacier broke off at once, it would be devastating.

Personally, this worries me more:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/current.html

[alexey]

I agree mankind is speeding up the climate change, how rapid that is, I really don't have a clue.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf



(2 Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere

system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while


negative forcing tends to cool it.)

[Lowghost]

Thanks alexey, but right now I can't open a pdf file. When I download adobe 8, I will look at it. :)

[alexey]

Thanks alexey, but right now I can't open a pdf file. When I download adobe 8, I will look at it. :)
No problem! I posted the relevant image for you, but there is a lot more in there if you're interested.

[alexey]

Johnny Punani,

Notice how the radiative forcing caused by CO2 (first graph) is actially below 0 when CO2 levels are under approx 275ppm. That further explains the study you brought regarding CO2 not being the "principal driver of climate variability" back when CO2 levels were lower: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3489005&postcount=51

That's pretty interesting, I did not know about the "radiative forcing" stuff. I did not know they can actually measure how something effects incoming/outgoing energy in the atmoshpere. I wonder if that's a recent development... will have to read up on it.

[SnyderShrugged]

BTW, the IPCC report is out...

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Here is an article about it and some of the BS being said about it...

http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/02/the_ipcc_report_is_out_let_the.php




after reading the first 10 pages of the report, there is a bit of confusion on my part that I'm hoping someone can help explain. I'm sure I must be missing something.

On page 9 of the document(in Adobe), there is a table identified as SPM-2. The middle column is the "expert judgement" assessments of Human impacts on the trends they have outlined in the 20th century. here is a breakdown:

1. Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas:
"likely" (or 66% confidence in results)

2. Warmer and more frequent Hot days and nights over most land areas: Likely(nights only) (or 66% confidence in results)

3. Warm spells/Heat waves frequency increases over most land areas: "More likely than not" (or 50% confidence in results)


4. Heavy precipitation events. Frequency (or proportion of
total rainfall from heavy falls) increases over most areas: "More likely than not" (or 50% confident in results)

5. Area affected by droughts increases: "More likely than not" (or 50% confidence in results)

6. Intense tropical cyclone activity increases: "More likely than not" (or 50% confident in results)

7. Increased incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis): "More likely than not" or (50% confidence in results)

Table notes:
a See Table 3.7 for further details regarding definitions.
b See Table TS-4, Box TS.3.4 and Table 9.4.
c Decreased frequency of cold days and nights (coldest 10%).
d Warming of the most extreme days and nights each year.
e Increased frequency of hot days and nights (hottest 10%).
f Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather
than formal attribution studies.
g Extreme high sea level depends on average sea level and on regional weather systems. It is defined here as the highest 1%
of hourly values of observed sea level at a station for a given reference period.
h Changes in observed extreme high sea level closely follow the changes in average sea level {5.5.2.6}. It is very likely that
anthropogenic activity contributed to a rise in average sea level. {9.5.2}
i In all scenarios, the projected global average sea level at 2100 is higher than in the reference period {10.6}. The effect of
changes in regional weather systems on sea level extremes has not been assessed.

In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an
outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More likely
than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely unlikely < 5%. (See Box TS.1.1 for more details).




so please help me clarify what I am reading here.

they are saying that of the events (trends) listed, their best level of confidence doesnt beyond "likely" or 66%, and the majority fell worse at 50%?

On top of this, then they tell us that Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies?. When we see elsewhere in the report that anthropogenic influence was at least 1/3 of the attribution for nitrous oxcide? Why wouldnt they include the magnitude in the study?


How is this leaving anyone with confidence that Humans in the 20th century have contributed to these trends?

Please dont take this as an attack on the Global Warming alarmist camp, it really isnt. I am simply confused by the variation in what I'm seeing between media reports and in this report.

Thanks for helping me figure out specifically what page 9 of the report is stateing in regards to the "likelihood" of human contribution to the above referenced trends.

[MiltonFriedmansGhost]

I've tried, unsuccessfully, to use the same reasoning on my brother, explaining that if he'd stop drinking, and it doesn't save his marriage, then at least he'll have stopped drinking.


The analogy works fine unless you consider the fact that drinking does absolutely nothing for your health. Carbon-based fuels are cheap and have driven our economy and the world's to unprecedented levels of prosperity. While the "addiction" analogy seems fine (even presidential), we're no more "addicted" to oil than paper, corn or light bulb filaments. We use them to get our business done.

[Predicto]

Snyder, I'm not dodging you. Things hit the fan here and I haven't had a chance to look at the report and try to think about it.

[SnyderShrugged]

Snyder, I'm not dodging you. Things hit the fan here and I haven't had a chance to look at the report and try to think about it.


Thanks!! really no hurry. I appreciate you walking through ikt with me and comparing observations. :cheers:


(ps) hope your day gets better! I cant stand it when it blows up like that)

[SnyderShrugged]

wow, the more I study page 9, the more confused it gets to me.

here is the definition of "anthropogenic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic

When you read point F from the footnotes below the table it is alarming to say the least that 4 out of 7 of their conclusions had no study of the magnitude of Human influence, it was just an "expert judgement"?

footnote F says:
"Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather
than formal attribution studies."

I really must be missing a big chunk of information here, because that makes literally ZERO sense to me.

[chomerics]

wow, the more I study page 9, the more confused it gets to me.

here is the definition of "anthropogenic" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic

Anthropogenic basically means manmade. . .



When you read point F from the footnotes below the table it is alarming to say the least that 4 out of 7 of their conclusions had no study of the magnitude of Human influence, it was just an "expert judgement"?

footnote F says:
"Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather
than formal attribution studies."

I really must be missing a big chunk of information here, because that makes literally ZERO sense to me.

No, that is not correct. Read what it says. . .

magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. . .translation "we did not calculate the impact of anthropogenic contributions".

Notice how the column heading is labeled "Likelihood of human contribution to observed trend" This says it is likely that humans will contribute to these factors, but we have not calculated out the exact contribution currently.

The categories of (f) are:

Warm Spells, Increased Tropical Cyclones, Increased Rain Events, and Increased Sea Level.

The conclusion is this. . .

Although we have not calculated the exact amount of increase at this time, it is likely that these events will happen, and it is also likely that these events are happening because of human factors.

That is the gist of their graph. You have to understand that the exact amount of warming, and the exact amount of hurricanes, or ice melting is basically impossible to predict, but they can predict an increase in intensity of hurricanes, and ice melting based on their models.

They predict the temperature will change anywhere from between 2°C and 5°C over the next 100 years. This will cause the aforementioned events to happen. What was not calculated was the % of anthropogenic influence when their models were run, or for example, hurricanes will increase 95% because of human impact, and 5% because of other factors. They are still working on that part of the problem.

Does that make more sense to you now?

[SnyderShrugged]

Anthropogenic basically means manmade. . .



No, that is not correct. Read what it says. . .

magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. . .translation "we did not calculate the impact of anthropogenic contributions".

Notice how the column heading is labeled "Likelihood of human contribution to observed trend" This says it is likely that humans will contribute to these factors, but we have not calculated out the exact contribution currently.

The categories of (f) are:

Warm Spells, Increased Tropical Cyclones, Increased Rain Events, and Increased Sea Level.

The conclusion is this. . .

Although we have not calculated the exact amount of increase at this time, it is likely that these events will happen, and it is also likely that these events are happening because of human factors.

That is the gist of their graph. You have to understand that the exact amount of warming, and the exact amount of hurricanes, or ice melting is basically impossible to predict, but they can predict an increase in intensity of hurricanes, and ice melting based on their models.

They predict the temperature will change anywhere from between 2°C and 5°C over the next 100 years. This will cause the aforementioned events to happen. What was not calculated was the % of anthropogenic influence when their models were run, or for example, hurricanes will increase 95% because of human impact, and 5% because of other factors. They are still working on that part of the problem.

Does that make more sense to you now?

Thanks Cho, I dont think I concur with your assessment here, but I will keep an open mind for the sake of dialog.

2 things:
How can they gauge the "likelyhood" without studying the magnitude?

and where is the media getting the 90% certainty that Humans likely to have influenced the observed trend when the percenatges are so dramatically different?

[chomerics]

Thanks Cho, I dont think I concur with your assessment here, but I will keep an open mind for the sake of dialog.

2 things:
How can they gauge the "likelyhood" without studying the magnitude?

It comes from their climate models. They can predict the temperature will increase 2°-5°. They can then run these models, which give an indication of which is likely to happen. That is what you saw in the column. What the models don't tell them is how many hurricanes increased because of human factors, hence the footnote (f).

The bottom line is that the earth is getting hotter, and we are causing it. What they don't know is the severity of our impact, that is what they are currently working on.



and where is the media getting the 90% certainty that Humans likely to have influenced the observed trend when the percenatges are so dramatically different?

I haven't seen that figure, but if you give me a link, I could find it for you. i would imagine they tried to hit 3 sigma levels (99.97%) but ended up around 2 sigma with their predictions. The problem is that as you increase the confidence, you also increase the tolerance band. For example, they can be 90% sure the temp will fall in the 2-5 degree band, or they can be 99% sure the temp will fall in a 0.5-8degree band. I don't know if those are the actual numbers, but just trying to give you the run of how statistics work, and what they mean in this report.

[SnyderShrugged]

It comes from their climate models. They can predict the temperature will increase 2°-5°. They can then run these models, which give an indication of which is likely to happen. That is what you saw in the column. What the models don't tell them is how many hurricanes increased because of human factors, hence the footnote (f).

The bottom line is that the earth is getting hotter, and we are causing it. What they don't know is the severity of our impact, that is what they are currently working on.



I haven't seen that figure, but if you give me a link, I could find it for you. i would imagine they tried to hit 3 sigma levels (99.97%) but ended up around 2 sigma with their predictions. The problem is that as you increase the confidence, you also increase the tolerance band. For example, they can be 90% sure the temp will fall in the 2-5 degree band, or they can be 99% sure the temp will fall in a 0.5-8degree band. I don't know if those are the actual numbers, but just trying to give you the run of how statistics work, and what they mean in this report.

Hey, not too bad on your stats! I think you are correct on landing within 2 sigma. but, one nitpicky thing...

actually as you increase confidence, you decrease the band (tighter prediction band).

I actually get the statistics part of it (it's my job, lol)

What Im lost on is how this report was supposed to be a "smoking gun" report, and it really is more of a policy statement lacking the mathmatical umph that I would have expected from such a big deal being made of it

[chomerics]

Hey, not too bad on your stats! I think you are correct on landing within 2 sigma. but, one nitpicky thing...

actually as you increase confidence, you decrease the band (tighter prediction band).

I actually get the statistics part of it (it's my job, lol)

haha, :cool: :cheers:

I was looking at the problem via a manufacturing mind, as in one way to achieve 3 sigma is to increase the tolerance bands for the data set. For example, if your parts have a tolerance of ±.05mm and you can achieve 2 sigma, but if you increase the tolerance to ±.75mm you can reach 3 sigma. I think I just did a poor job explaining it. So the correlation would be they are 99.97% confident they will be within a .5-8degree shift, or 93% confident they will be within a 2-5degree band. :laugh:



What Im lost on is how this report was supposed to be a "smoking gun" report, and it really is more of a policy statement lacking the mathmatical umph that I would have expected from such a big deal being made of it

I believe all of the mathematics is going to be in the final 1600 page report due in a couple of months. All this report contained was a summary of the conclusions, but the main report is due out in a few months.

[SnyderShrugged]

February 11, 2007
Global Warming Shovel Hot Item in New York Stores
by Scott Ott

(2007-02-11) — Wal-Mart and Home Depot stores in upstate New York report brisk sales of the new Global Warming Shovel which hit store shelves just in time for this week’s 9.5-foot snowfall.

The shovels, made of a rigid form of lightweight GORE-TEX®, are specifically designed to remove the kind of snow spawned by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, “no matter how deep it gets,” according to the manufacturer.

Later this week, the company will also roll out its new Kyoto Mittens, “guaranteed to protect the wearer from the inconvenient truth of global warming-induced frostbite.”

[ddpls]

I want to know whatever happened to the big push about acid rain??? I guess there wasn't enough money to be made from studying that, so all the scientists had to jump on the "Global Warming" subject to make more money. It still amazes me how during the 40's and 50's with all the heavy industry for the war and all the fires burning from the war and all the open air nuclear testing that was done, all the military vehicles and civilian vehicles that were being used with Leaded gasoline, paints, insecticides and then underground testing of nuclear weapons and all the pollution of the 70's. That after the big push for environmentalism by the former vietnam protestors who had to find something else to be mad about, and all the environmental regulation on industry and superfund site cleanups. That somehow after implementing all these so called abosolute measures of cleaning up the environment. Somehow we are even worse off as a whole because of SUV's and cow's passing gass? I think it all comes down to money, keep everyone hysterical so that they don't question how much money is being dumped into this study and that study. Just like all of the pharmaceutical companies. Look at all the money being made on treating Symptoms. What incentitive is there to cure disease? If they do, the money well dries up. So keep up the hysteria, everyone will do whatever they must to keep money pouring into "Research" and debates will continue forever. I wonder how big a topic it would remain if all the funding was taken away and scientists had to do research because of their heartfelt obligation to save the world from this great calamity. Then it would be equally interesting to see how many politicians would remain on this wagon as well when the attention turned to something else to spend money on?